Evaluating Science

As you assess what appears to be science in the news and the popular literature, it might be helpful for me to share with you some basic lessons that I have learned during my career in science.  While you may be well aware of some of the points I am about to make, others may not be quite so obvious.  Much of this was recently reinforced in my own mind in an Encore class, “What Science Is and What Science Isn’t”.  Dr. Hubitz, a Physics professor with many years experience in teaching and evaluating science, felt that the general public was often misled by what they believed to be valid science.  It was a great course from my point of view because I could relate a broad range of misinterpretations from flying saucers, chiropractic treatment and many other subjects to my own experience in interpreting results of various clinical trials in my work at Bristol-Myers Squibb.

I don’t intend to judge any particular concept here but I will simply cite recent interest in the reported benefits of particular diets as a generalized example to point out the series of intellectual layers that need to be addressed.   It’s sort of like an alien from another world arriving on earth never having seen any type of plant, trying to understand the role of a coconut in a palm tree.  He would need to start at the roots and work up through progressive layers of understanding.

To claim that reported results have come about through scientific investigation implies the use of the scientific method in achieving those results. The scientific method demands a well-defined sequence of steps beginning with a clearly defined hypothesis, e.g., such and such a food is harmful to one’s health.  In such a case the hypothesis should be refined as much as possible.  For example, what is the specific harmful effect believed to be caused by the food?  What population (demographics) is susceptible to the suggested harmful effect?  What dose of the food is believed to be harmful? etc.,etc.

Once a clear hypothesis is formulated, a well-controlled study is designed to test the hypothesis.  A homogeneous target population is identified, test conditions are established with sufficient numbers of subjects to yield statistically meaningful results and all potential variables are held constant, except the variable being tested and this is varied in a systematic way in order to study important parameters such as dose-response relationships.  Reproducible findings are then needed from other investigators to confirm the hypothesis.   It’s unlikely that there has ever been a human dietary study that meets these strict standards.  It would be nearly impossible to control all variables in a human’s life other than one specific dietary factor.  For this reason nearly all data regarding diets and health come from retrospective surveys.  Additionally, results of this kind are only correlations, which do not establish a cause and effect relationship.  That’s not to say that such results are of no value.  They may be quite informative, but we need to recognize that retrospective data, in general, are far less reliable than results obtained from well-controlled prospective studies.  It’s always a good idea to get a good handle on the full range of opinions.  Where is there nearly unanimous concurrence and where are there credible divergent opinions?

The perspective I would bring to this, based on my experience with numerous clinical trials of various new pharmaceutical therapies, is that even in the case of very carefully conducted, well designed, prospective trials, results can and often do vary from one study to the next.  In fact the typical NDA presented to the FDA for approval of a specific indication might contain five large trials of several hundreds or thousands of patients each, three of which are positive for the new drug, one negative and one neutral.  You virtually never get a totally clean picture, even with tightly controlled studies.  Human biology is incredibly complex and variable.  Responses to nearly all interventions reflect this.

Nearly all health care workers are familiar with the very powerful effect the human mind can have on health and disease, from the medicine men of primitive societies, to faith healers and to most doctors and nurses.  A positive mental attitude has often been observed to play a substantial role in recovering from an illness.  Conversely, there are many reports of voodoo and other “evil” spells associated with sickness and even death.  There is a whole field of medicine; “psychosomatics” that deals with mentally induced illness. While I must admit that little if any of this is based on trials conducted by the “scientific method”, most of us are personally familiar with the strong effect mental attitude has on our lives.  Thus, if you have a strong belief that a particular diet or behavior is beneficial to you, chances are it will be, at least via the psychosomatic route and you should usually follow your instincts.

Finally, there was a statement in a recent article on diet and health that I strongly agree with.  The best judge of what is good for you is your own body.  Listen to it and follow what it is telling you.  If you feel good and are happy with your choices and your life style, stay with it.  If you feel improvement is needed, look for those things that benefit you as an individual.  There is no such thing as a “one size fits all” lifestyle.  Keep in mind the powerful effect of a positive mental attitude.

The Economic Mega-Quake

We are approaching the anniversary of the most powerful earthquake ever recorded on earth, a 9.5 magnitude quake that hit Chile on May 22, 1960.  Coincidently, while relatively few people have any clue about what our government is leading us into, we currently are entering into the most powerful financial quake ever to hit humanity, and therein lies the critical danger.  Most people are totally unaware of this.

As a nation, we are so far in debt that the chances of us every reducing it to the point that it can be reasonably managed, much less paid off, are slim to none.  Everyone can check the National Debt Clock on the internet and see it spinning wildly upward from its already lofty perch of over $15.5 trillion.  We can be told that in the last four years alone it has increased $6 trillion and is projected to soon speed by the $20 trillion plateau once the full impact of Obamacare clicks in.  The problem is that most people’s eyes just glaze over when they hear such facts.  Most of us have no concept of just how much money even $1 trillion is and even if we did get some feeling for that sum of money, it’s amazing how many people think that the government will take care of things.  After all, can’t they just print all the money they need?

Now some people may need to be hit over the head with a hammer loaded with financial reality.  The citizens of the United Sates are The Nation and the National Debt is our debt.  As a citizen of the U.S., each of us presently owes the creditors of our nation roughly $50,000.  That means that the typical family of four is responsible for a debt of approximately $200,000.  How many of the nation’s families could manage a debt of this magnitude, and the story gets worse.  Only about 50% of the citizens of our country pay taxes, so you could say that every tax paying family of four needs to fit paying interest on a $400,000 debt into their budgets.  At 5% interest, that’s payments of $20,000/ year.  One other thing, this debt is increasing every second (take a look at the National Debt Clock).  Are we headed for financial disaster?

You may be wondering why the government just doesn’t print a whole pile of money and pay off the debt.  They certainly can print money fast and may even be able to print it faster that the Debt Clock is advancing.  However, for every new dollar that they inject into the economy all existing dollars loose a bit of value.  That’s known as inflation and a large influx of new dollars would set off rampant inflation so all of our financial resources would be worth far less.  The cost of everything would go through the roof.  Additionally, creditors would demand markedly increased interest rates on new debt.  Printing money is not a realistic solution for our debt problem.  While “so called” quantitative easing (printing money) may give the illusion of temporary relief, in reality it is a deadly trap.

So, what can we do?  Our government continues to function in the red, i.e., run a budget deficit.  They spend more than they take in so our debt just continues to increase.  While some politicians make feeble sounds about reducing the deficit, they need to be shouting at the top of their lungs, warning us of the Mega-Quake Debt already upon us.  I have to admit that regardless of which politicians are in power, I have little confidence that they will, or even have the ability, to save us from a serious financial meltdown.  I recommend reading the New York Times Bestseller “Aftershock” by the authors (David Wiedemer, Ph.D., Robert A. Wiedemer and Cindy Spitzer) who accurately predicted the initial wave of financial misery (bursting of the housing bubble, rising unemployment, etc.) that we have recently experienced.  Their latest predictions are certainly ominous and we can only hope that they are wrong.  Additionally, by reading the accounts of the difficulties currently being faced by Greece and a number of other European countries, you may gain important insight on what to expect in the future  and how best to protect yourself and your families.

Reality: A View From The Rabbit Hole

Introduction

In reading into several of the hot current topics in science, in particular particle physics and quantum mechanics, I was struck with parallels between this science and the fantasy described in Lewis Carroll’s children’s stories of “Alice in Wonderland” and “Through The Looking Glass”.  Not the least of the parallels has to do with the basic question – what is reality?  In the children’s stories, reality is distorted by Alice’s dreams while in the sciences; we come face to face with apparent realities that are every bit as strange as Alice’s exploits in Wonderland.

Mihio Kaku extrapolates a variety of fictional concepts, including Alice’s passage through the looking glass, to consider the likelihood of currently impossible technologies becoming possible in the future.  In his book, Physics of the Impossible¹, Kaku details topics which were once strictly in the purview of science fiction that are now beginning to creep into a category of things that, although far off in the future, may be possible within the bounds of scientific reality.  Invisibility, teleportation and time travel might someday become realities.  The very question of whether or not reality has limits requires us to first address the basic question; what is reality?

What distinguishes the real from the unreal?  If we simply look up the meaning of reality, we are faced with a surprisingly extensive list of definitions for this little seven-letter word.  The following, although undoubtedly incomplete, give some indication of the range of these definitions.

• The world or state of things as they actually exist.
• A thing that is actually experienced or seen.
• A thing that exists in fact.
• The quality of being lifelike or resembling an original.
• The state or quality of having existence or substance.
• Existence that is absolute, self-sufficient or objective.
• Everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

We see in the above list of definitions certain universal attributes of the concept of reality.  These attributes are represented by words such as actual, exist, fact, lifelike, original, existence, substance, absolute, self-sufficient and objective.

In considering each of these attributes independently, we may feel that we are no better off than simply using the word real or reality. For example, what does it mean to exist or what is a fact? It seems that the above terms are simply synonyms for the word real or reality.  The definitions simply don’t get us to the heart of the matter.  What is it that differentiates the real from the unreal?  Aren’t actual or actually just other ways of saying real or really and can’t the same be said of exist or existence?  When the adjective, absolute, precedes any of these words, it might be suggested that we then have a notion of something more basic and more definite.

This then begs the question; Does absolute reality exist and, if so, how is it proven and how does it differ from relative reality?  We often speak of facts and associate the concept of reality with facts.  Facts are often described as truths that are independent of human associations or perceptions.   Philosophers have long argued the question of whether a tree falling in a forest makes a noise if no one is there to hear it. If we are of the opinion that the noise occurs whether or not anyone is present to hear it, we might conclude that facts, in the purest sense, are phenomena of nature independent of human presence.  However, there are also many categories of fact that are dependent on human involvement.  For example, if, while seated in a crowded room, I see a man get up from his seat, operate a wall switch whereupon the lights go out, I might consider it a fact that he turned out the lights. However, my fact might be disputed.  Another person might claim that he saw a woman turn off the lights.  The fact to the other person is that a woman turned off the lights.  The other person and I have different perceptions of who turned off the lights.  Who is right and who is wrong?  It could be that we both saw someone different throw a switch upon which the lights went out.  It could be that one switch controlled the lights and the other switch controlled some other less obvious function such as ventilation or, perhaps neither switch operated the lights.  Our perceptions of a key fact and thus, our realities differ.  Such discrepancies of the facts are commonplace in courtroom settings.  The consequences of deciding which fact is “real” can, in the most extreme cases, determine the fate of the accused, freedom or the electric chair.

There are many other examples of where realities differ between individuals or groups of people with religion perhaps being the most obvious.  The religious reality of a Catholic is likely to be quite different from the religious reality of a Hindu.  Political, moral, economic, social and a broad range of philosophical beliefs are other areas where humans differ in their views of reality.  These issues as well as others will be addressed in the section on subjective reality.

Material Reality

Material reality for the purposes of the present discussion will be defined as those apparent realities relating to all aspects of the natural world, independent of human involvement or the human mind.

Scope of Material Reality

In considering material reality, we first need to grasp, as best we can, the scope of its domain, the spectrums of time and distance.

Perspective of Size and Distance:

With respect to size and distance, there are, in theory, no bounds.  However for present purposes here, maximum size will be limited to that of the universe or about 93 billion light years (10³⁰ meters) in width, and the smallest size as that of a quark or about 10^-18 meters.  This entire range is then from 10^-18 meters or approximately one ten billionth of the thickness of a human hair to 10³⁰ meters or about 100 septillion miles, or if you prefer, 100 trillion trillion miles.  Regardless of how this range is expressed, it’s extremely difficult for most of us to appreciate its enormity.  Direct observation by most humans is able to cover only a tiny fraction of the range from about 10^-4 meters to the distance from earth to the Andromeda galaxy about 2.5 million light years away.  This is something in the order of one trillionth of the total size/distance range that we have defined.  Now that would really makes us feel like an ameba who’s known universe is the drop of water in which it lives if it weren’t for our brainpower.  Fortunately, our brains have saved us from this extreme myopic view.  The invention of microscopes, telescopes and various other technological innovations has substantially expanded our ability to see a much greater portion of existence.  The sciences, especially physics, have provided the mental capacity to predict existence beyond what can be directly observed.  Our perceptions of reality achieved through direct contact via our senses have also been dramatically expanded through intellectual deduction and extrapolation.

Time:

The range of time is a bit easier to comprehend than the range of size or distance but it points out that we are really “Johnny Come Latelys” in the overall scheme of existence. With respect to time, it’s helpful to consider the perspective of various times relative to some standard.  While there is still debate regarding if and when time started, most physicists now agree to the convention of regarding the beginning of time to be synonymous with the birth of the universe, now believed to have occurred with the “Big Bang” 13.7 billion years ago.  

The following table is reprinted from the book, A Path To The Gold² and indicates that human history represents only a miniscule fraction of 1% of the age of the universe.

Age of the universe -- 13.7 billion yrs.

Age of the solar system & Earth -- 4.5 billion yrs.

Age of life on earth -- 3.8 billion yrs.

Age of land animals on earth -- 65 million yrs.

Age of humans on earth -- about 100,000 yrs. or 0.1 million yrs.

Time Perspective - On a compressed time scale, if the age of the earth is

represented by one year, humans have only been around for the last 13.8 minutes.

Thus, direct human experience with material reality in terms of it’s key parameters, size or distance and time, represents only a tiny fraction of 1% of the total ranges of those parameters.  In spite of the human ability to expand this experience dramatically via technical and intellectual creativity, we will see that experience at the far ends of those expanded ranges has introduced major uncertainties regarding our understanding of the true nature of reality.

Absolute Material Reality

With respect to the natural world, it might be said that absolute reality consists of those facts that everyone will agree upon.  For example, if I display a stick of wood and announce to a room full of people that this is 36 inches long and allow them all to hold it and measure it in order for them to satisfy themselves that it is indeed what I claimed it to be, they would likely all agree with me as to its description as resembling a yard stick.  Chances are that they would also agree that this is an indisputable fact of nature that will not change regardless of how many other people have the opportunity to inspect and measure the stick of wood. However, we need to upset the apple cart just a bit by bringing Albert Einstein into the conversation.  Dr. Einstein would remind us that according to his theories of relativity, if that same 36-inch long stick of wood was contained in a rocket ship traveling close to the speed of light and we could somehow manage to view it from our position here on earth, it would appear much different.  The stick of wood would no longer appear to be 36 inches long; its length would appear to be substantially shorter. This principal of length shortening is a consequence of relativity that has been experimentally verified and is due to the fact that the speed of light, 186,000 mi/sec, is a constant whether the light source is static or moving.  Likewise, a clock would appear to slow as the speed of light is approached.  Indeed, it seems that time itself is relative.  In fact, small increments of time slowing have actually been demonstrated in fast flying jet aircraft.

Consider the situation where you and another person are sitting at a table in front of a fireplace having a cup of tea.  You might both agree that the two of you are sitting quite still in a quiet setting.  However, you would both be moving through space at the amazing speed of about 2 million miles per hour.  Thus, while your senses tell you that you are essentially motionless, except for occasional slow movements as you raise the tea cup to your lips, a bit of intellectual investigation will convince you that you are in fact traveling at a speed of about 2 million miles per hour.  The earth is rotating through 360 degrees every 24 hours.  If you are sitting at the equator and the circumference of the earth is about 25,000 miles, you would be moving about 1000 miles per hour as it rotates.  Also, our entire solar system is moving through the Milky Way toward the constellation Hercule at a speed of about 45,000 miles per hour.  Additionally, our solar system is moving up at 90 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way at a speed of about 15,000 miles per hour.  Our solar system is also orbiting around our galaxy at an estimated speed of about 446,000 miles per hour.  And now for the big one; it’s estimated that our galaxy is moving through the universe at a speed calculated to be about 1,339,200 miles per hour.  Thus, while sitting quietly in front of the fire, we are moving at the incredible speed of about 2 million miles per hour.  So, what’s the big deal about going out and jogging for an hour at an imperceptible speed of 5 or 10 miles per hour?  I think I’ll just sit by the fire, sip tea, and be satisfied with 2 million miles per hour.

Trouble In Paradise

While science has recently encountered unsettling situations at the extreme upper limits of the observable/theoretical key parameters of material reality previously described, the concept of the singularity stretches our comprehension of these parameters to the limit.  A singularity, whether existing in the heart of a black hole or at the beginning of time just prior to the “Big Bang”, defies our previously infallible laws of physics.  Our total base of existing knowledge, where the laws of physics perfectly describe all observed aspects of the universe, lead to the conclusion that a singularity gave rise to the “Big Bang” and thus, everything in the universe, and singularities are presently thought to exist at the heart of black holes. The singularity is described as a location in space where enormous quantities of matter and energy are compressed into an infinitely concentrated, dimensionless point.  In the case of the “Big Bang” singularity, it is believed to have contained all of the matter and energy that would ever exist in the universe.   Ironically, our trusted laws of physics that led to the concept of the singularity break down as we approach the moment of the singularity and are inadequate to describe that which they predicted.  Physicists tell us that a key in eventually truly understanding the concept of the singularity may lie in developing a new theory of gravity.  It is believed that a new set of equations may be needed to describe the intense force of gravity, termed quantum gravity, that must exist within a singularity.

As unbelievable as the concept of a singularity is, things get even crazier when we begin to probe the theories of quantum mechanics and particle physics that describe a sub-atomic world of the very tiny at the other end of the size/distance range.  We now truly find ourselves in a world akin to Alice’s as we view reality within the rabbit hole, or if you prefer, beyond the looking glass.

Quantum theory and the sub-atomic world

Extensive knowledge of advanced mathematics is necessary to discuss or understand quantum theory in depth.  However, several of its key implications will provide us sufficient familiarity with its major implications regarding material reality.

All mater is composed of molecules, which are combinations of atoms in certain proportions that are characteristic for any particular type of matter.  For example, water is composed of molecules of H₂O, which as we see are composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, two common elements. If we now take a closer look at the atom, hydrogen is the simplest atom and consists of a nucleus of one proton orbited by one electron.  In turn, protons are believed to be made up of even smaller particles termed quarks.  We could go on and on and talk about numerous other subatomic particles that have been discovered experimentally or postulated by physicists.  However, for our purposes we have quite enough and only need to introduce the four fundamental forces in nature to complete the picture and enter the strange world of quantum mechanics.

The four fundamental forces include gravity, electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force.  We are quite familiar with gravity as we constantly depend on it to keep us attached to the earth.  Gravity plays a major role in the structure and organization of the macro universe but has little implication in the subatomic quantum world.  The strong nuclear force is primarily responsible for holding quarks as well as all larger particles together in the nucleus, particularly important when the nucleus contains more than one positively charged proton.  However, the force is the same for both protons and neutrons and is independent of charge. The weak nuclear force is responsible for radioactive decay leading to still other particles and that leads us through yet a different door in the quantum wonderland that we will leave for another day.  The electromagnetic force is perhaps the most important force for us to consider in our search for quantum reality.  It is a force generated by the charged particles within the atom.  Thus, it is the electromagnetic force that bonds the electrons to the nucleus of the atom and, as a chemical bond, bonds atoms to each other.  All four forces have particles associated with them that act as force carriers between the various components of the atom.  In the case of the electromagnetic force, photons act as force carriers between protons and electrons and there are a variety of more obscure particles such as W⁺, W^- and Z⁰ that act as force carriers of the weak nuclear forces as well as 8 different gluons that act as force carriers of the strong nuclear force.

Let’s imagine that we could step inside a hydrogen atom just as Alice steps through the looking glass.  What would our quantum wonderland look like?  First of all, let’s consider the scale of the atom.  Brian Martin in his book, Particle Physics³ attempts to describe this scale by starting with the dot in this letter “i”.  He suggests that the dot has a radius of about 10^-5 m and therefore could contain approximately 10¹¹ atoms of carbon.  In the case of the significantly smaller hydrogen nucleus, it would accommodate even more but 10¹¹ is close enough for illustrative purposes.  He further points out that the dot on the “i” would have to be magnified to at least 5000 km to be able to see the atom’s nucleus with the naked eye.  The proton of the hydrogen nucleus has a radius of about 10^-15 m and the electron, as well as the quarks that comprise the proton, are at least one thousand times smaller, i.e. ≤ 10^-18 m.

A presentation that discusses the Scale of the Small⁴, presented by the Khan Academy, uses the following analogy to give a feeling for the scale of the atom.  If you imagine the nucleus the size of a marble in the center of a domed football stadium you get a feeling for the relationship of the size of the nucleus to the total size of the atom.  Now, add to this the electron of the hydrogen atom and this could be likened to a honeybee buzzing around from seat to seat.  The first thing that strikes us is that the atom is mostly empty space.  Brian Martin in Particle Physics³ goes further to suggest that if all of the volume of the atom is ‘nothing’ and since we are made of atoms, we are also mostly nothing.  The same could be said of other configurations of matter, including a brick wall.  If this were the whole story, we should easily be able to walk through the wall.  Clearly, we can’t walk through brick walls, so what else is there to the atom?  The answer is that the space within the atom is permeated by electromagnetic fields generated by the atom’s charged particles.  As we pointed out previously, the electromagnetic force within the atom is transmitted via the exchange of photons between the nucleus and the electrons.  Thus, it is the electromagnetic force field within the atoms that give matter its “substance” and prevents us from easily walking through a brick wall.

Let’s now consider some of the bazaar behavior of electrons, photons and other subatomic particles in the quantum world.  Returning to the domed football stadium model of the atom, we would never be sure of where the honeybee is.  A split second after we see the bee on the seat in front of us it is instantaneously translocated to the far end of the stadium and, in fact, sometimes it is seen to be in two different locations at the same time.  We can never pin down its location and the mere act of us observing the bee causes its position to change instantaneously.  If we could observe the path of a single photon, which has been described as both a particle and a wave function, we would be equally amazed.  As has been demonstrated in the laboratory, we might observe a single photon’s ability to pass through two parallel slits at the same time.  We might also observe neutron decay by the weak interaction where a W particle with a mass 80 times heavier than the entire neutron itself is emitted.  As Brian Martin points out in Particle Physics³, this is like a loaded truck with a gross weight of one ton ejecting a cargo weighing 80 tons, another impossible event in the macro world but commonplace in the bazaar quantum world.  How do these strange observations of the behavior of electrons, photons and the rest of the particle zoo effect our perception of reality?  Perhaps we are becoming more and more convinced that material reality is actually more relative than absolute.

One might argue that mathematics could be considered a sphere of absolute reality.  Indeed, we would agree that a particular mathematical fact such as 6 divided by 3 always equals 2.  However, unless this mathematical fact is attached to some other aspect of the material world, it has little relevance to most of us.  For example, the fact that 6 divided by 3 alone doesn’t mean much while the desire to divide 6 apples equally among three children does.  Thus, we may wish to say that mathematics is the closest thing we have to absolute reality but in isolation it remains an abstract concept.

Subjective Reality

For the purposes of the present discussion, subjective reality will be defined as all those ideas, emotions and beliefs associated with our existence that emanate from the human mind.   Examples could include love, hate, compassion, fear, morality, religious philosophy and the concept of God.  Unlike aspects of material reality, aspects of subjective reality are non- quantifiable.  For example, it’s usually impossible to know which of a married couple has the most love for the other.  There is no instrument or other scientific method to provide such objective data.  Two people may have totally different opinions regarding the morality of a particular behavior and one’s idea might be totally rejected by the other.  Religious philosophy and the concept of God are undoubtedly among the most significant and controversial areas of subjective reality.  A major consequence of the non-quantifiable nature of the above examples is that they exist as a vast set of realities, formed by complex neural pathways in the brain, and are specific to each individual.

Asking whether or not subjective realities are or can be absolute probably does not make sense if we accept the premise that they are specific to each individual.  Furthermore, since they are constructs of the human mind, they would not exist if humans did not exist.  Some might claim that the obvious exception to this is “God”.  While most may agree that religious philosophies as well as religious institutions are creations of the human mind, the majority of people who consider themselves religious would claim that “God” exists independent of man and is the prime absolute in all of creation.

Is There A God?⁵   (Originally published Sept. 2007)

The following is abstracted from a rather comprehensive discussion of the “God” concept that I published several years ago.

“Several weeks ago the question (is there a God?) was discussed on the CBS news program “Sunday Morning”.  Various individuals on both sides of the issue presented both the religious and the atheistic viewpoints.  The obvious conclusion was reached that neither side could prove its case.  More interesting than what was discussed was what was not discussed.  From my own perspective, the first and most basic point that was not mentioned by anyone, and should have been established, is a definition - what is meant by the term “God”.

The term “God” has been defined in a variety of ways throughout history.  Ancient civilizations worshiped multiple Gods, each seen as having controlling power over various aspects of the environment or the human being.  There were fire Gods, Gods of the seas, rain Gods, Gods or Goddesses of love, etc, etc.  In more modern times, a monotheistic God is seen as the creator and ruler of the universe, the source of all moral authority, a superhuman being or spirit having power over nature and fortunes, even a thing or object of supreme importance.  Although the participants on the CBS program did not specifically define what they meant by “God”, chances are they meant the traditional monotheistic God, i.e., a supremely powerful deity or superhuman.  There was also no mention of “God’s” origin or location either within or outside of the universe.

None of the above questions or numerous other related questions, which would seem to be relevant to a more in-depth examination of the issue posed, were mentioned.  This suggests that whether or not one believes in God is purely a matter of faith rather than an attempt to arrive at a rational conclusion.  Observations of various cultures would appear to support this conclusion.  Large segments of any particular culture hold specific religious beliefs that are characteristic of that culture.  Religious beliefs are most likely accepted early in life and are seldom questioned later in life.  In many cases, fear is used to capture and hold the audience.  The mere act of questioning the teachings of the religion, much less questioning the existence of God, might be considered a sin.

On the other hand if we truly want to explore the rationality of God’s existence, the term God must be clearly defined and our conclusion might well depend on the nature of this definition.  To explore this matter, I will compare analyses using two quite different definitions of God.  In the first instance I will use the classic monotheistic definition of God as a supreme being or superhuman who is the creator and ruler of the universe.  I believe superhuman is a good concept to use in this case because Christianity teaches that man was created in God’s image.  The second definition to be explored is my own personal concept of God, which was suggested in Rationalism - A process For Making Life’s Decisions⁶ - September 2006.

Case 1 - God as a supreme being or superhuman:

This is another case where it’s appropriate to use probabilistic rationalism to explore several key questions associated with this concept of God.

1. What is the origin of monotheism and on what is it based?

2. If we consider the universe to be the creation of God, which contains everything in nature, where did God come from and where did he reside before the time of creation?

3.If God is supremely powerful and created man, why is man so flawed in so many ways?  What possible rationale would there be for an all-powerful supreme being to make man in his image but endow him with so many defects?

4.If God truly loves us all as his creations, why is there so much pain and suffering in the world?  Why are so many perfectly innocent babies and children, as well as adults subjected to extreme suffering?

The origin of monotheism appears to have been a gradual occurrence arising from social, cultural and political conditions existing in ancient times with no generally accepted date ascribed to its appearance, although some clues can be gained in studying the early history of Israel and the Middle East.

The gradual evolution of theology to arrive at the present concept of a single Supreme Being appears to be closely aligned with the evolution of human social structure.  One might reasonably expect that a “Supreme Being” type of God would have made his existence known to his creations unambiguously from the outset.

The question of God’s immortality and residence, if we believe that God created the universe and everything in it, presents a question devoid of any rational answer.  Do we need to consider the possible existence of other parallel universes and speculate on the nature of their creations?  What was the ultimate starting point of all time and of God himself?  There is no response to these questions from the religious community other than invoking a statement of faith.

With respect to human history, it’s difficult to conclude that the “human experiment” has been a gloriously successful creation of an infallible, supremely powerful God.  Once again, only a convoluted attempt to apply rationality to the situation or the statement of faith can be used to justify apparent reality.

Perhaps the extensive amount of pain and suffering experienced by humans, especially the young and innocent presents the greatest challenge to justify the support of a loving and all-powerful supreme being.  Only a very strong faith can dismiss such an argument against the existence of a loving personal God.

God as the total sum of all laws of nature:

My own belief in God stems from a profound sense of awe in observing nature in all forms from the wonder of life to the profound grandeur of the universe.  While I have no understanding of the manner in which the laws of nature arose or are intertwined to produce the magnificent web of time and space comprising the universe, a magnificent order is present at all levels.  It is simply incomprehensible to me that this beautiful order could have arisen from strictly random events.  In my view, God is this order and exists in every particle and corner of the universe.  God is in every cell in our bodies and in every aspect of the cosmos.  For as long as nature and the universe have existed God has existed and will exist until the end of time.  In my personal view, this description elevates the concept of God to a much higher level than the more traditional “superhuman” concept.

I realize that my view of God and the creation of the universe is contrary to the conclusion reached by Stephen Hawking in his recent book, The Grand Design⁷.  While Professor Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have been able to construct a rational model that implies that it is possible for an entire universe to be created from nothing, I personally find that idea difficult to accept.  While Hawking clearly suggests that it is not necessary to invoke God in the creation of the universe, he seems to stop short of proposing that there is no God.

Probabilistic Rationalism:

The probability that God exists as a supreme being or superhuman who has not, unambiguously, made his existence known to mankind, that has created such a flawed species as man and that allows so much suffering to occur among his creations is, in my opinion, less than 10%.  If I were God and I indeed had supreme power sufficient to create the universe and everything in it, I would want the life forms that I create to be highly successful flawless experiments and I would certainly not want them to be exposed to suffering, often times involving totally innocent babies and young children.  Now, having said that, the true believers in a superhuman type God can always offer the well known “cop out”, discussion ending, argument that we humans cannot know or understand God’s master plan.

The probability that the structure and order found throughout the universe, including the wonder of life, has arisen from strictly random events or, as Stephen Hawking proposes, suddenly pops into existence from nothing is, in my opinion also low.  However, once again, there is no proof for an opinion one-way or the other just a sense that some level of intelligence is involved.  Thus, if we wish to ascribe this intelligence to a concept of God, a 50% probability may be appropriate.

In summary, there is simply too much uncertainty concerning the existence of God to arrive at anything except a personal impression/opinion of his existence and nature.  Thus, whatever it might be for any particular individual has got to be respected and considered to be correct for that person.  In this sense each person’s definition of God is correct for him.  After all, God is not of the material world.  He has no actual place of residence.  He doesn’t communicate with us in any concrete way, i.e. phone, radio, e-mail, etc. and no human has had a documented face-to-face conversation with him.  God is of the spiritual world.  He exists in our minds and, as such, is a creation of our minds as much as we are creations of God.  Whatever that impression of God is, is correct for the mind creating it.

Thus, in answer to the original question - Is there a God?  Certainly there is a God.  The concept of God is a product of the human imagination.  While God does not exist as an absolute entity in the material world, God exists in the minds of men as the central key component of the spiritual world and as long as there are those who believe in God, God will exist.  In this sense, there is no right or wrong.  Whatever concept a person has of God is just as valid as that of anyone else, even the atheistic view of there being no God.  On the other hand, religions and religious institutions are of the material world and are created by man.  No one of these is any better in an absolute sense than any other, nor are the beliefs arising from any one religion any more valid than the beliefs arising from any other.  They all attempt to connect the material world with the spiritual world.  In the material world, apparent reality is revealed through scientific study where knowledge is revealed by transforming the unknown to the known.  However, true knowledge in the spiritual world is unknowable.  Scientific methods are unable to bring the unknowable into the realm of the known.  Thus, all concepts of the spiritual world must be regarded as equally valid, including the concept and nature of God.  Whatever you believe is just as valid as what the next person believes and as long as there is at least on person who believes in the concept of God, God will exist.”

Conclusions

It’s clear that there is no easy, or for that matter, absolute answer to the question of whether any form of absolute reality exists.  Neither in the material realm or the spiritual realm can one point to a single certain, unanimously agreed upon example of absolute reality.  The concept of “God” probably comes closest.  However, without even bringing atheism into the discussion, there are numerous variations on this concept among the various populations of humans.  Thus, we probably have to be satisfied with the conclusion that most, if not all realities, are relative to each of us as individuals but also to our location in time and space and our movement through the time-space fabric of the universe.  The important question is; does that really matter to us?  If all reality is relative, does it have any substantive effect on our lives and how we lead our lives?  Does it matter to an ameba that it is only aware of conditions in the drop of water that it lives in?  Does it matter to a goldfish that its entire world is what exists inside its fish bowl?  It may have some distorted visual perception of a small segment of the outside world but that distorted perception would have no relevance to the fish’s life.  The only realities that the ameba and the goldfish are concerned with or are even aware of are those relative realities associated with the sphere of their own universes.  Furthermore, it’s totally irrelevant to either that the realities they respond to are relative.  Although on a different scale, can’t we reach a similar conclusion for mankind as we regard reality as “a view from the rabbit hole”?

Epilogue

What new vistas await us as we anticipate further adventures in the wonderland of nature?  In considering how far the human species has come from our perspective on the universe of ancient times to the present, we have seen an almost exponential expansion of its recognized boundaries.  At one time the earth was regarded as the center of the universe with all of the heavens revolving around it.  Today, we realize that the earth is a mere spec of matter orbiting one of countless billions of stars.  Rather than the myopic view of the central importance  of man in all of creation, most cosmologists today believe that there are likely  many, perhaps millions or billions, of other planets in the universe that support advanced life forms.  As we contemplate passing through another door in the wonderland of nature, will other entire universes be revealed?  Theoretical physics already postulates, via string theory and membrane theory, the probability of a multi-universe reality.  Indeed, membrane theory is a central concept in Steven Hawking’s proposal that our universe arose spontaneously from nothing.  Perhaps we can explore the possibilities of multi-universe realities, relative or absolute in the future.

References:

1.    Physics of The Impossible, Michio Kaku, Anchor Books, 2008.

2.    Path To The Gold, J. Stuart Fleming, createspace.com, 2009.

3.    Particle Physics, Brian R. Martin, Oneworld Publications, 2011.

4.    Scale of The Small, kahnacademy.org, 2011.

5.    Is There A God? J. Stuart Fleming, jstuartfleming.com, 2007.

6.    Rationalism – A Process For Making Life’s Decisions, J. Stuart Fleming.com, 2006.

7.    The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, 2010.

The Ten Dumbest U.S Ideas of 2011

(Just For Fun)

1. European-style socialism for the U.S.
2. Accumulating a $15 trillion national debt.
3. Continuation of deficit spending.
4. Regarding border crashers as immigrants rather than criminals.
5. Occupy Wall Street nannyism seekers.
6. Republican candidate self destruction via repeated debates
7. Solyndra et al.
8. Fast and Furious
9. The Congressional Super Committee
10. 90% of TV Programming

Nannyism And Politics

It’s a curious fact that the population of the United Sates is essentially equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.  In fact a recent Rasmussen pole found that Republicans account for 33.9% of the population while Democrats account for 33.7%. The remaining 32.4% were not affiliated with either party.

Anyone following national politics can’t help being impressed with this fact and the resulting corollary that when our nation comes to a fork in the road, half of the people choose to go right and the other half choose to go left.  In most cases when you follow one fork or the other, you arrive at different destinations.  That begs a key question that may reveal interesting insight into human behavior.  Is this a strictly random distribution, like flipping a coin, where a sufficiently large number of flips will result in equal numbers of heads and trails or does it represent two truly different populations who actually desire two quite different socioeconomic systems?  Have we arrived at this even political split through rational analysis or by mere chance in a manner once suggested by Yogi Berra, “when you come to a fork in the road, take it”?

Rather than desiring a different objective, it’s more likely that the split represents differences in belief (ideology) regarding a preferred path to the same goal, i.e., a strong and viable socioeconomic structure for our country.  If this is true, it would indicate that roughly half the people think that a large central government is the best path to follow while the other half of the population believes that smaller federal government with a greater emphasis on more local institutions, i.e., state and local governments, is preferred.  This later path would presumably allow for greater individual involvement and would be favored by those concerned with issues of personal liberty and responsibility.  While there are many other related differences between the liberal and the conservative positions, the size and degree of influence of the central government reflects the principal basic difference in philosophy.  So the question we have to answer as we come to the fork in the road is which do we have more confidence in, a large central government or more local governance?

This can be a difficult choice since it’s very easy to come up with a laundry list of why you may not trust one option or the other.  The choice one makes is very likely dependant on personal experiences.  However, returning to the theme of human behavior, I would like to introduce the concept of “nannyism”.  While the term is often used in a strictly political sense, i.e.,  “the role of government in regulating and controlling people in order to protect them from themselves”, a more general examination of the concept may be useful.  People differ in their desire to have someone else, a nanny, take care of them and we all have this desire to some extent. It comes to us in a very natural way.  During the early years of our lives, we all depend on various adults, in particular our parents, to provide for our needs.  As we mature, we develop a sense of and desire for increasing independence.  However, this does not develop to the same extent in everyone.  Some people may suffer either physical or mental handicaps, which render them permanently dependant on others.  Some, for one reason or another, freely choose to remain more dependent and to relinquish a degree of their self-determination and independence.  In all likelihood they make this choice because they either lack the confidence or the motivation to accept the attendant responsibility.  In fact, I would say that most of us desire some degree of “nannyism” in our lives.  Perhaps the most obvious example is the concept of “God” that the vast majority of the world’s population believes in.  Why are so many of us subject to this form of “nannyism”?  While this opens a vast and potentially very controversial topic that would be very interesting to probe in great depth, the following will suffice to illustrate this example.  As humans, we have very limited and meager understanding of our greater environment, the universe, much less any ability to control it.  Our only hope for a feeling of ease and comfort in this situation is to adopt the concept of a superior intelligence, thus, “God”.  If you think I’m dismissing the concept of “God” as simply a convenient stopgap for dismissing human ignorance regarding the nature of the universe, I assure you I am not.  The concept of “God” is central to the spiritual world which I believe is every bit a part of reality as is the material world - more on this in a future communication.  Condominium ownership is another far less controversial example.  Those who purchase a condominium choose “nannyism” via a homeowners association.  The association is responsible for exterior property maintenance, thus, relieving the individual homeowner of that responsibility. Workers join unions, which, in effect, become nannies for the membership. There are numerous additional examples of “nannyism” in our lives where, in all cases, we give up a degree of personal freedom in exchange for avoiding a degree of responsibility.

Returning now to “nannyism” in politics, it’s suggested that those favoring large government, the Democrats or Liberals, are more open to “nannyism” than are the Republicans or Conservatives who favor less government intrusion into their personal lives in exchange for a greater degree of individual liberty and responsibility.

Finally, getting back to the initial question of why there seems to be such an even divide between the two major political parties, I would suggest it is due to this very basic aspect of human nature, i.e. “nannyism”, as it exists in our country at this point in time.  When our country was founded, individual liberty was cherished and the “nannyism” imposed by the British crown was rejected.  As the years have gone by, the early attitude toward “nannyism” has mellowed and dependency on government has become more accepted.  The population of our country has grown far larger since 1776 and a larger government has become necessary to address ever more complex issues.  Currently we seem to be experiencing a “tug-of-war” between the forces of socialism and capitalism and the split is essentially even.

I’ve tried to present this analysis without taking sides but I have to conclude by pointing out that socialism is the next stage of “nannyism” that our country may be headed for.  As the entitlement population of the U.S. continues to grow under the influence of far-left liberalism, we move ever closer to that unfortunate eventuality.  I say unfortunate because many failed nations lie in the wake of socialism. I’m not sure we can still claim this status, but the U.S. was once respected as the most desirable and successful nation on earth.  Because the human spirit has such a strong desire for liberty and individual freedom, many from around the world were attracted to this country as the land of opportunity.  I hope that view will not permanently fade into history. 

Capitalism vs. Socialism

We often hear the two isms, capitalism and socialism, mentioned in current political discussions.  In spite of their frequent reference, it has occurred to me that many of us may have rather limited understanding of the true meaning and implications of these two economic philosophies.  Thus, I thought a rather concise description of each might be useful in assessing the range of opinion we are likely to hear from political candidates as we approach next year’s elections.

Concise Definitions:

Capitalism: An economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods and services are privately owned and are controlled by free market factors of supply and demand.

Socialism: An economic system where the means of production and distribution of goods and services are either state owned or commonly owned and are controlled cooperatively.

While you can find much more extensive definitions than the above, I believe that the concise definitions provided above offer a clear description of how these economic systems differ.  Capitalism is based on the concept of economic freedom while Socialism is based on the concept of a controlled economy.

Capitalists believe that “economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property.  In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state.  In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.”  In contrast, Socialists do not believe in economic freedom.  Rather, they believe in central or state control of labor, capital and goods.

In the final analysis, under Capitalism, wealth will distribute itself unevenly, based on individual ability and effort.  Those who work hard and contribute most to the society will acquire the most wealth while those who contribute less will acquire less.  It’s just like being in school.  If you work hard, you will end up with an A.  If you coast through the course, you will end up with a lower grade.

In the final analysis, under Socialism, wealth will be distributed evenly.  Those who work hard and contribute most to the society will not be rewarded with any more wealth than those who contribute less.  It’s like being in a school where everyone ends up with the same grade regardless of how much they study, how much they learn or how well they perform when tested.

At this point, I would have to say that most people who are ambitious and willing to work hard for their living are repulsed by the concept of Socialism.  However, those who advocate Socialism try to sugarcoat the concept by claiming they are actually advocating “social justice”.  This very admirable sounding term in essence means assuring everyone in the society an equal outcome regardless of how much effort they put in.  In order to accomplish “social justice”, the socialist government focuses on income redistribution, i.e., taking from the producers and giving to the takers.

In reality, most economies are not purely capitalistic or socialistic but rather somewhere along a continuum where pure Capitalism is depicted at the right hand end of the continuum and Socialism at the left hand end of the continuum.  Communism is more of a political concept where extreme Socialism is totally in the control of the government, which also is often severely suppressive of human rights.

History leaves little doubt that Capitalism has been far more successful than Socialism in leading to prosperity of nations.  Studies conducted by The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation have tracked the Index of Economic Freedom since 1995.  The index was calculated on the basis of ten measures of economic freedom.  Results from 183 economies (2009 – 2011) show a clearly positive correlation (0.78, R² = 0.61) between the index of economic freedom and economic prosperity of nations.  Furthermore, a clearly negative correlation was observed (-0.52, R² = 0.27) between government spending and national GDP.  Thus, we don’t need to limit our conclusion to comparing pure Capitalism to pure Socialism.  Socialism in any dose appears to have a negative influence on the prosperity of the nation.  The following is a firsthand account of how socialism has worked in Hungary and how it is now working (to a more limited degree) in Canada.

Gabriella Megyesi

I have been in Canada for just two weeks and already I feel at home. I feel at home not because of the landscape or climate. Nor do I have any family here. But public policy in Canada reminds me of growing up under a communist regime in Hungry during the 1970s.

I recently looked at The Fraser Institutes Economic Freedom Index, which measures the economic freedom of 122 countries (based on the ingredients of personal choice, protection of private property, and freedom of exchange). It revealed that Hungary has been doing quite well since its transition from a command economy to a market-driven economy. Its rating, after stagnating for a long time in the 1980s at 4.8 out of 10, suddenly jumped up to 7.4 in the 1990s due to massive deregulation, privatization, and a free market economic structure that made it possible to have wage incentives. I have seen these changes at work in Hungarys economy and witnessed the beneficial results.

A key reason for Hungarys success and growing prosperity and living standard (5% growth is expected this year) is that people can now own property. The private sectors contribution to GDP has jumped from 10 percent during socialism to 70 percent today due to privatization and massive investments. (Much of this investment comes from abroad, proving that without globalization, we wouldnt be anywhere.)

But Hungary was not always governed by a communist system. Hungary had built a free market system by the end of the nineteenth century. The communist regime, which took power in 1948, confiscated 90 percent of all private property by 1953. This established the communists complete political and economic control.

When the socialists were in charge, we kept hearing nice promises that EVERYONE would get FREE (or cheap) and GOOD QUALITY goods and services. The only problem was that the three features never worked at the same time.

If something was FREE and AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY, it was not good quality (e.g., health care, garbage collection, telephone lines, roads, public transport, media, education, etc.). Anyone who has driven an East European car, or worn clothing made in Eastern Europe knows what I am talking about.

If something was FREE and GOOD QUALITY, it was not AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY. It was only available to those who had good links to the government, belonged to the party, or skipped sleep to be the first in the line the next day. However, even in the latter case, chances were high that those in line would find only empty shelves. You could get much better quality goods in the communist partys shops, not to mention the leaders houses. Good connections also meant better quality cars, vacations, access to good quality health care and other services.

If something was GOOD QUALITY and AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY then it wasnt free or cheap. Instead, you had to pay a high price or a bribe for it. Putting some cash into your doctors pocket in an envelope, for example, was an accepted practice which exists even today, since the majority of the health care provision is still in government hands.

Shortages and queues were ubiquitous, prevailing in every government sector. Hungarians had to wait up to 6 years for a car, up to 7 years for an apartment, and up to 12 years for a telephone. On October 12, I read an article in the National Post about the long waiting lists for health care provided by the Canadian government. Medical specialists were particularly concerned; 67 percent of Canadian specialists surveyed saidtheirability to provide quality care has worsened since 1995, compared with 60 percent of specialists in the US, 49 percent in Britain, 42 percent in New Zealand, and 41 percent in Australia. Yet medicare in Canada consumes more and more money.

Many people must be wondering why, if government pumps more and more money into health care, shortages and long waiting lists are not decreasing. The answer is that incentives to provide quality goods and services are missing in every walk of government-provided life.

I hear people in Canada complaining about the gap between rich and poor, pointing at the greed of the rich, and crying for fairer or more equal distribution of wealth. Well, examples abound under communism where people had more or less equally cheap housing, cheap vacations, cheap cars, cheap telephones, and even cheap refrigerators. (Maybe this is why Hungarian governance in the 70s was called "refrigerator socialism" or "Goulash communism.") People earned more or less the same, both women and men worked similar hours and for more or less similar wages. Of course there was no incentive for anyone to put their full effort into their work, since no one could earn higher wages by achieving more. People took it easy at work; they had two lunch breaks, five coffee breaks, and 10 cigarette breaks. Absenteeism and "work-shirking" abounded. Guaranteed employment also resulted in the careless attitude so often seen in shops or in the bureaucracy where customers should have been served, or helped, or just treated as human beings. I remember government-owned shops all over Hungary and Eastern Europe that seemed to have more shop assistants than goods, and customers had no hope of being greeted with a smile. There was a saying: "We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us."

And Hungary is now indeed paying the price: a US $35 billion debt which the socialist government accumulated.

Hungarys example should serve as a warning to everyone that prosperity depends on economic freedom. Like Canadians today, Hungarians during the 40 years of socialism were promised socialism and prosperity. Interestingly, though, the socialist parts did not prosper and the prosperous parts were not socialist!

Gabriella Megyesi is a Hungarian economist and high school teacher. She is spending the fall term at, and teaching in, The Fraser Institutes Student Seminar program.( Frasier Forum, 11/2000)

People need the freedom to either succeed or fail and it’s living the reality of that freedom that provides the necessary incentive for people to become the best that they can be.  The United States has enjoyed a free market economy since it’s inception and that has produced the strongest and most successful country the world has known. No economic system or government run by humans is free of cheating, greed, corruption or any of the other negative aspects of human behavior but that’s another story to be further probed in a future article.  Suffice it to say, at this point, that the checks and balances in a free market democratic system do a far better job of controlling this than are seen in many of the socialist countries where the ruling elite often denies basic human rights.  US Capitalism has also produced the most compassionate country on earth.  Yes, we have poor people in the U.S., but they are far better off than the poor anywhere else in the world.  Private enterprise has resulted in many billions of dollars going, voluntarily, to charity.  The world knows that when they have trouble, the U.S. is the one country they can rely on for help.  I don’t want to see our country destroyed.  We’ve successfully repulsed every threat from the outside but, unless we are vigilant, I’m afraid we may be headed for defeat from within.  I believe that our $4+ trillion national debt poses a greater threat than either Iranian nuclear weapons or terrorism.

Note: The quantitative data discussed here was taken from "Promoting Economic Opportunity & Prosperity, The 2011 Index of Economic Freedom", http://www.heritage.org/index.

Scary Thoughts For Halloween 2011

As we approach another Halloween season, recent behavior of our federal government brings to mind scary thoughts from the past.  It’s said that history repeats itself and the following actions by our government are much too reminiscent of actions by other governments during some of darkest moments of human history.   Tyrants like Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein intimidated, threatened and punished real and imagined political foes.  No actions were out of bounds or too extreme to feed insatiable egos and to assure iron grip control of their countries.

I’m not suggesting that our current government even approaches the evil represented by these tyrants and their corrupt regimes but the very fact that some recent, highly questionable, activities makes one think of such things is disturbing.

Consider the following four current government scandals:

• Fast and Furious
• Boeing
• Gibson Guitar
• Solyndra

In the cases of Boeing and Gibson, the government has employed “strong arm” techniques in an attempt to silence political foes, i.e. Republican supporters and to shore up Democrat supporters, i.e., labor unions.  In both cases their actions are almost certainly harassment if not outright unconstitutional bullying.  In any case, if the government prevails in crippling the legitimate business activity of either this large corporation or this relatively small musical instrument company, the net result will be not only a loss of jobs but, more importantly, fear struck in the hearts of other companies that they better toe the line.  It’s ironic that this is occurring at the hands of an administration attempting to convince the public that it is pro-job growth.

The “Fast and Furious” and Solyndra cases are both the result of incredibly poor decisions made by the administration, and that’s putting it in the nicest possible terms.  Considering the recent revelations that billions of dollars have been wasted in providing illegitimate unemployment benefits and that nearly one trillion dollars were wasted in the last “stimulus program” that didn’t stimulate anything except the bank accounts of the administration’s political allies,  you have to question the administration’s true goal, particularly since they seem to show no real concern for the fact that our country is hurtling along the road to bankruptsy as our national debt soars above $14 trillion.

I don’t like scary thoughts but maybe we had better heed the ghosts of the past.